Most of this thread is above my pay grade, but somehow, what is going on with Facebook andZuckerberg relates!

I was watching an episode of Homeland (S5)...SPOILER ALERT...when 1300 CIA files weredownloaded during a hack from a guy that did webcam porn, which got out of control, and the guy who did the hack for fun against a radical Muslim group was faced with the significance of what he found. He gave it up to a radical journalist who went on TV with it...CIA got scared,US-German relations got strained, and the other guy who was in the room said, "She (the journalist) is going to make a lot of money over this, why can't we make money as well?"His response struck me...

Facebook Under Fire: This attitude towards information is very similar to what is being said on CNN, MSNBC--senator(s) (Ed Markey), analysts, with the conclusion: Big monopolies need to be broken up...Your personal information has been compromised! Zuckerberg knows exactly what is going onand his response was weak at best. Power corrupts...this is no difference than big railroads!

Go back to 1998...this article about Microsoft before Facebook or any other company relatedto the Internet was even in our consciousness might have been 20 years ahead of the curve;

Good video Steve...one studio drummer has said a young cat needs to know computers before drums...I would argue you need to know business before them all! This story is the norm...and Dave revealshis true heart here...the emotion and hurt is real...betrayal from the suits is bad enough, but from your band "brothers" who cave bygetting paid out...give him credit for not giving up.

When you have to call in the "forensic accountant" to wonder why you are making$700 a show after 30 years in a band...fair to say moral hit an all-time low!

After reading bio after bio of rock musicians, I think it is fair to say theseguys are Rock Stooges! Music biz is no different than any other...5% make95% of the $$...Mr Accountant money handler guy usually is the one boinkinga band...rationalizes his actions by thinking, "You get the fame and women,I get the money...I'll give you some, but will hide a lot of it for myself!"

Jealousy is a bitch that is never satisfied! We over think maleficence...rockmuso drapes himself with hot females, dork accountant guy gets too close to the sun,knows he will never get the flame, so gets his squeeze though $$...and sleeps atnight because in his mind, "The band would NEVER be successful without him,therefore..."

I would argue than a reasonable, relatively simple, alternative exists that wouldn’t affect overall revenue for the labels, but which would again financially connect artists with their fans who are streaming subscribers. That would be to more directly connect subscription revenue to the artists that the individual subscriber listens to. So the portion of my subscription that is paid out to artists actually goes to the artists whose music I streamed, spread among them based on MY streams, not those of anyone else. In essence, each subscriber is empowered with his or her own stream rate, allocated in the way that they listen.

Again, total label revenue remains the same, but the odd wealth reallocation among artists that streaming has wrought would be, at least partially, undone. And the music consumer is empowered in a way that largely conforms with longtime expectations, and with overall business trends.

For years the music industry has argued that YouTube exploits the lack of legal protection around music videos being viewed on its service to pay minimal amounts to artists and labels when they are viewed. The music industry has lobbied that this “value gap” between the true worth of the music videos and what YouTube decides to pay needs to be addressed with legislation.

On Wednesday, a crucial vote by the European parliament’s legal affairs committee went the way of the music industry with an agreement to adopt copyright laws that will force platforms such as YouTube to seek licenses for music videos.

“The importance of today’s vote cannot be overstated; this proposal is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a new balance in the online world,” said Helen Smith, the executive chair of the European music body Impala, which represents labels behind acts including Adele, Arctic Monkeys and Franz Ferdinand. “It is about copyright and making sure creators and their partners get a fair share of the value they create.”

YouTube has an estimated 1.3 billion users who regularly watch music videos and it paid $856m (£650m) in royalties to music companies last year – an estimated 67 cents per user annually. In the UK, record labels and artists earn more than double the royalties from the sale of 4.1m vinyl records than they did from the 25bn music videos watched on YouTube last year.

By contrast, income from the 272 million music fans who paid for ad-supported services such as Spotify, generated $5.6bn in royalties, or about $20 per user annually.

While the legal affairs committee vote marks a landmark moment – it is the lead committee on the legislation that has been the subject of vociferous lobbying by tech companies and the music industry for 18 months – it will face a further challenge before becoming law. The committee voted 15 to 10 to adopt the controversial article 13.

It is expected that a challenge will be lodged by members of the European parliament opposed to it, which will result in the entire parliament voting in July to decide whether to approve or reject Wednesday’s result. A final vote on the adoption of the overall legislation will be made later in the year.

By claiming safe harbour protection, the music industry argues, companies like YouTube have been able to force record labels, music publishers and collecting societies into accepting licensing deals where they receive much lower royalties. Deals, which – the industry adds – unfairly skews the digital music market by creating a ‘value gap’.